By Raffique Shah

THE US government is expected to spend US$58 billion on domestic security in fiscal 2006 through its many agencies, the principal one being the Department of Homeland Security. That mind-boggling sum, up from around $17 billion in 2001, is only part of security-related expenditure in the USA. According to a recent AP report, states and cities are annually contributing an additional $20 to $30 billion. There are no estimates on how much more is spent on auto, home, banking and personal and other security measures by corporate America and citizens and residents of the US. Overall, the number could run well into hundreds of billions-and that only in continental USA: it excludes what that country spends on security elsewhere in the world, especially in its several theatres of war.

In Trinidad and Tobago, high crime and fear of a potential threat of "terrorist attacks" also have fuelled a boom in security businesses, with the number of private companies providing such services growing almost exponentially. From the provision of basic, unarmed security guards at businesses and residences, considered compulsory today, to expensive electronic devices, security is big business. One recently retired expert who spent 20-odd years securing a major business said firms like banks were spending "hundreds of millions of dollars each year on security". "Besides security guards that you see at banks, there are electronic security systems that cover from their ATMs to monitoring everyday business at the many branches they have," he added. "In fact, they even monitor their own staffs, such is the nature of their business. They also install electronic security to monitor transactions via the Internet and to prevent credit card fraud. These do not provide 100 per cent guarantees that they will not suffer thefts or other losses. But they will have suffered more without them. The cost, I can tell you, is huge."

In fact, the international accounting giant, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, started a "global security survey" in 2003, targeting electronic security at financial institutions worldwide. "Deloitte's purpose in publishing the results of the survey is to contribute to the protection of the financial services marketplace by sharing current practices and identifying future trends in security and privacy management," its 2004 report states. In that year the survey found that less than 10 per cent such companies reduced their security budgets over the previous year, while 25 per cent spent the same. But some 15 per cent increased their security budgets by five-to-ten per cent and a similar number by 15-to-20 per cent. And over 12 per cent had to upgrade by over 20 per cent. The global average cost of security for financial institutions' overall budgets stood at one-to-three per cent of their IT allocations, while in the US it remained at around seven per cent. And these numbers apply only to electronic security, not personnel.

In the wider world of business, from retail to wholesale, supermarkets to telecommunications, security costs have risen many-fold over the past decade. Even one-door groceries have taken to hiring security guards.

Balliram Maharaj, one-time head of the Supermarkets Association, who operates a wholesale business in Arima, said the basic number of guards at most supermarkets is two. "You have one armed guard for which you pay between $25 and $35 an hour, and a plainclothes, unarmed guard who costs around $20 an hour. For personnel, a medium supermarket may spend around $15,000 a month," Maharaj said.

He added: "You then have electronic monitoring, mainly using closed circuit televisions (CCTVs). A system with a few swivelling cameras and recording devices will cost around $50,000."

Based on a rough estimate of 20,000 businesses hiring guards at a cost of $15,000 per month, expenditure on security personnel alone amounts to around $3.6 billion per year. These include several enterprises that have their in-house "estate policemen"-all the large oil companies, T&TEC, TSTT, etc. Even they contract private security firms for special purposes, as TSTT did recently when theft of its expensive fibre optic cable became overwhelming. In the meantime security companies have virtually exploded into the business, given the money that can be made from it. For example, while businesses pay $30 and more per hour for armed guards, such personnel are hardly paid more than $20 an hour. And rates for unarmed guards range from a minimum of $9 per hour to $12 an hour. But with a serious manpower shortage occasioned by the construction boom (in the main), some security companies have been forced to "sweeten" their packages with overtime pay, sick leave, vacation leave, pension and health plans.

Carolia Cadogan, secretary of the Estate Police Association (EPA), told Business Express: "Rates of $20 per hour for armed guards are unusual. Few companies pay that high. Most pay between $13 and $16 an hour. Unarmed officers who usually carry only batons are paid between $9 and $10 an hour. Add to these starvation wages the conditions under which most security guards work, they are abominable. For example, only a few such companies offer the additional benefits you mentioned, and these are mainly the in-house, recognised companies. In the main, these guards are overworked and underpaid. In the current economic boom, companies are finding great difficulties to get good personnel to meet the demands for security. I know of one major operator that recently interviewed applicants only to find they did not meet the basic requirements. In fact, in order to hire a few, they had to conduct remedial classes to bring them to the standard where they could write simple reports. If these companies do not pay better-and they are making huge profits from security-they simply will not get employees."

The EPA estimates there are at least 40,000 security guards in the country, some of whom are represented by the EPA, but many of whom work for fly-by-night companies that are not even registered with the Ministry of National Security. "These people have no protection whatever, and quite often no training," said Cadogan. "But they are exposed the same dangers we are, and they are exploited to the hilt by their employers." Low wages and horrible working conditions may, however, be the least that the EPA has to worry about. While there will always be the need for personnel on the ground, more and more governments and corporations are turning to electronic security measures. While technology in security has been around for many years-scanners at airports and many government offices-post 9/11 has brought about the biggest innovations in hi-tech security. The bottom line, though, is these devices cost.

The recent arrests in the UK of would-be multiple-aircraft-bombers sparked a worldwide alert to security measures required not only for airline passengers, but airports security in general, and overall security in countries that are thought to be potential prime targets. Prime among these are the USA and the UK, although other countries, as diverse as Spain, India and Indonesia have suffered from deadly terrorist attacks. In this country, our vulnerability lies mainly in our business and trade links with the USA, not the least of which is that we are the biggest supplier of LNG to the US. Candyce Kelshall, a Trinidad-born, UWI educated specialist in maritime security, discussed this threat in a paper titled "Radical Islam and LNG in Trinidad and Tobago". Kelshall, who is a director of Bluewater Defence & Security Ltd and who also sits on the UK National Ports Security and Standards Committee, wrote of the dire threat to LNG tankers and other ships that transport volatile cargoes. She said that while intense security and safety measures are instituted once these vessels reach close to US ports, no such security

is in place as they traverse the Caribbean Sea en route to the USA.

The major ports in this country-Port of Spain, Point Lisas, Point Fortin-have upgraded their security to meet the US-imposed International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS) as of 2005. That involved conducting security audits, determining what was required to meet the new standards, and buying, installing and activating the necessary equipment. Interestingly, almost all the services and equipment required to meet the standards came from US agencies or companies, and cost millions of dollars. Even so, security costs continue rising at ports and airports as new "threats" are encountered and new electronic equipment become available on the market. The precise sums spent at these major facilities for security is now known. But among all our heavy industries and our points of entry and export, one can safely assume that hundreds of millions of dollars are expended each year.

The recent UK aircraft scare impacted negatively on airports and airlines worldwide. Shares in airline companies, more so US and UK airlines, took a beating. What the incident triggered, though, were additional security measures that cost humongous sums and inordinate delays for passengers. In the UK itself domestic tourism enjoyed a boost in the final weeks of the summer vacation as many Brits chose to stay at home rather than suffer at airports and risk their lives. Again, it is known that the Airports Authority and Civil Aviation Division have revisited their security arrangements at Piarco and Crown Point airports. The cost of upgrades will run high as new-age scanners that can detect from knives and guns to liquid explosives, as well as improved monitoring systems, are acquired and activated.

Another area in which security costs will be incurred in the Caribbean is in sports, specifically with respect to the Cricket World Cup to be hosted by the West Indies in 2007. In this regard a Sports Security Summit was held in London last January. According to a Guardian (UK) report on the eve of the conference, it was estimated that organisers of major sports events around the world will have spent upwards of US$2 billion during the course of 2006. In 2004 when the Olympic Games were staged in Athens, that figure reached a record US$6 billion in the wake of heightened global terrorism fears. In Athens alone some US$4 billion was spent on the "most complex, exhaustive and costly intelligence and security operation yet mounted." Among extreme measures taken for those Games were NATO aircraft policing a "no-fly-zone", US battleships offshore and underwater sweeps of the harbour.

With London preparing to stage the Olympics in 2012, every indication is that the 200-million-pounds (sterling) allocated for security will be revised upwards significantly. Roy Steyn, security advisor to the 2007 Cricket World Cup, said the event would be "a logistical headache advising on security across nine sovereign countries". He added: "There are five currencies, nine telecom providers, nine very autonomous commissioners of police and nine legal jurisdictions. Cricket supporters are largely different from football supporters-cricket is seven hours in the sun, football lasts 90 minutes. The world has learnt an immense amount on safety of football matches from Britain, and matches are superbly stewarded. But how do I apply that to the Cricket World Cup, where everything is uniquely Caribbean? But it is a world tournament and it has to adopt best world practices."

Caricom governments have voted a huge sum for security for the World Cup, but even that is expected to increase as new potential threats are met with new, more elaborate and more expensive electronic equipment. A new security company established in Port of Spain, which has exclusive Caribbean rights to certain high-tech equipment, has indicated to the Local Organising Committee (LOC) that it has "security blankets" that will cover all stadia effectively.

"We have scanners that can be placed at all entrances that will speed up the entry of patrons without sacrificing security," a principal of the firm told Business Express. "These scanners, which are in use at certain airports, can process people quickly and not miss out on weapons, bombs and electronic devices to trigger explosives. There are also stadia-monitoring systems that will continuously scan patrons and everyone else in the stadia throughout matches. But, they cost. And the question is whether or not the ICC or the LOC will want to buy such equipment for a one-off event. It will be more prudent for, say, government to acquire it, and rent it to venues where major sporting events are staged. It can also be a good security tool for Carnival fetes and shows where large numbers of people are in confined areas, and where incidents of violence are commonplace."

So what's the bottom line in security costs this country has had to meet, what with the crime epidemic and threats of terrorism? It's very difficult to quantify. One local security expert said: "One can put in the pot what the government spends of security. In fiscal 2005-2006, some $3 billion was voted for the National Security Ministry. It can be safely assumed that this figure will have increased during the year, and that at least 66 per cent will be used for manpower and equipment that provides security. Then in the industrial and commercial sectors, a similar figure may well be spent. And add to that what is spent in devices to secure motor vehicles, homes and personal security, another $3 billion can be added. Overall, therefore, this country spends upwards of $10 billion annually in security, for personnel and equipment. We can expect this number to rise as efforts are made to curb crime and as high-tech equipment are upgraded-they will also cost more.

It shows that whereas there was a time when it could be said that 'crime does not pay', we can now say crime costs, and a hell of a lot at that. The true measure of this cost can be gauged if we try to apply that sum to, say, social programmes to alleviate poverty, and maybe dampen crime."